There are many areas within which it is desirable to perform correlation analysis between sets of data to find out whether two or more objects match or not. One example of such an area is dating, where there are two objects in the form of two persons, one set of data being information associated with one of the two persons, and another set of data being information associated with the other one of them. Information will be exchanged between the two persons, they will both perform a correlation analysis between their own information and the received information, and then usually they will have a feeling whether there is a match between them or not. Depending on the dating situation, the exchange of information will be performed in different ways. For example, in one situation one of the above persons has inserted a personal advertisement in a newspaper or on the internet, and the other person has replied to it. The exchange of information is then usually made by writing letters or e-mails. Another example is the situation where the two persons meet in a coffee shop or a nightclub. The exchange of information is then simply made by talking.
A problem with the above dating methods and conventional dating in general, is the considerable risk that two partly randomly chosen persons will not match. Not seldom, it takes considerable time before two persons realize that they do not match. If the dates are not supposed to be like quizzes, it will take time for two persons to know enough about each other to tell a match from a mismatch. Therefore, finding the right partner can be very difficult and also very time consuming, since one probably will have to date a number of different persons before one finds the ideal partner.
From U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,348,740, 4,348,744 to White, a method and an apparatus for comparison of sets of personal data are known. Users can enter data about themselves in the portable apparatuses and then compare their data by physically interconnecting the apparatuses by means of connectors. Scores representing the compatibilities between users are shown on the apparatuses.
From German patent application DE 197 35 045 an information handling unit for comparing personality profiles is known. Like in the White invention above, users physically interconnect their apparatuses to compare stored data. Two interconnected units signal if there is a match between their users.
A major disadvantage with both of the above known devices is that users have to carry their devices in full view to be able to find each other, which means that everybody can see who is carrying such a device. Another great disadvantage is that users have to be very active and search for other users. Additionally, when two users have seen each other, if they find each other interesting, they will have to make contact in order to be able to compare their information, an indiscrete situation which in many ways can be very uncomfortable.
From U.S. Pat. No. 6,150,937 to Rackman, a personal contact “Ice Breaker” is known. One type of contact badges are distributed to the boys in a group and one type to the girls in the group. All badges are provided with a light that can blink, and opposite badges in proximity with each other transmit and receive contact signals. If the lights on two badges blink at the same time, the carriers of the badges should start talking to each other. Whether this happens or not is based on probability and the blinking is therefore no indication of an actual match between the carriers.
From U.S. Pat. No. 6,020,810 to Har-Even, a device and a method for finding a date/mate is known. A user enters personal data into his/her device. The data is transmitted to, and other data is received from, another device. The received and the transmitted data is compared, and a percentage match between them is determined. An alarm is activated if the percentage match is greater than a predetermined value.
From German patent DE 44 18 234 to Weiszhar, a unit similar to the Har-Even device is known. Also in this invention, data entered by a user is transmitted to, and other data is received from, another unit. If there is a mutual match between two units, their users will be alerted.
In the devices according to the state of the art briefly described above, the entered information concerning the user of a device, and in some of the cases also his/her desired partner, will be transmitted to other devices in order to find a matching partner. Thus, the information will be transferred to complete strangers having a device for receiving such information. This is a threat to the personal integrity of the user, since the information might contain very personal details about him/her that he/she does not wish to share with just anybody, but which details must be shared for the matching to be successful. Additionally, with the above discussed devices, a very high percentage match between two users can be very misleading. As an illustrative example, between two users in the form of a man of the age 45 and a girl of the age 17, who would have each other as ideal partners if it was not for the age difference, since they share the same interests and values, there will be a very high percentage match. This indicates a very successful match, but in reality they would most certainly not make a good couple. The same line of reasoning can be followed regarding gender and sexual orientation. There can be a 90% match between a man and a woman of each others ideal age. However, if for example the man is a homosexual, the match will not be successful in spite of the high percentage match.